health insurance montana
health insurance montana
Get Instant Health Insurance Quotes!
Health reform includes tax increases hidden from view
To pay for health reform, you will find billions of dollars in increased tax revenue in two major bills currently before Congress – with each adopting a very different ending who pay.
The richest among us, as suggested by the text in the House, who receives an income surtax of 5.4 percent tax on those earning more $ 500,000 per year?
Or perhaps a broad band of middle class, battered by a series of changes to the tax code on medical expenses and tax policies of insurance, drug manufacturers and others in the health sector who say they will pass on these costs on consumers?
The final result may be part of the two approaches – but either way you cut, someone will pay higher taxes to finance costs of reform. These costs include allowances for some families to help them buy health insurance from 2013 or 2014, and the government has expanded coverage for certain.
A brief look at the tax proposals of each of the major bills:
Bill: No section of about 46 billion dollars a year by levying a surtax on individuals earning over $ 500,000 per year and couples who earning over $ 1 million. Only 700 households of Montana taxpayers fall into these categories.
It would also be imposed on the device Medical and unlimited tax medical "flex" accounts of expenses of $ 2,500.
Senate Bill: with an account controversial tax of 40 percent on the so-called "Cadillac" health plans, receives an annual fee for the insurers, drug makers and manufacturers medical devices, and raises social health insurance for single people earning more than $ 200,000 per year and couples who earning over $ 250,000.
It also limits the flexible spending accounts and tax deductions for medical expenses.
U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Chief Architect Senate bill, opposes the tax in the full House, saying the bill in the Senate "pay for health reform in U.S. healthcare. "
He also argues that for many low income families and middle Bill will eventually reduce their costs by offering grants to help buy health insurance (since 2014).
Critics Senate's approach – in particular the special tax on health coverage – for example, the package will clearly tax the workers of the middle class benefits decent health, but did not see much direct benefit reforms.
"I think public officials in Montana will be hammered hard as excise taxes, "said Eric Feaver, president of MEA-MFT union more important in the state, which represents 18,000 teachers and other workers. "We are very surprised to see how, at this stage, we have been unable to convince Senator Baucus, this fact. "
The tax would be applied in the "value added" benefits of health care over $ 8,500 for singles and 23,000 dollars for families, from 2013.
The value added is what you and your employer pay for your whole vision of medical, dental and policy and any expense account medical expenses of its flex. For most workers, an amount that easily extends to thousands of dollars per year.
Doubts family policy Feaver many will be affected in Montana, but said the total value of the policies of many individuals covered by the plans the company might easily exceed the $ 8,500 threshold in 2013.
To avoid the tax to 40 percent, workers and their employers to purchase less coverage resulting in more costs for medical staff, Feaver said.
Supporters of the tax, including Baucus, argue that money saved to buy less expensive coverage becomes higher wages for workers.
Feaver response: "I just flat do not buy it. … There will be a significant tax on insurance and members of my going to pay. And I think they are a middle class. "
Another target of criticism in the bill the Senate is the rate for health insurance and health industries related. These rates up to 6.7 billion U.S. dollars annually by insurers nationwide, fall into force in 2009 if the bill passes.
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, the dominant health insurer in the state, said its share of the tax would be $ 8 million to 12 million dollars a year. It is estimated that the tax and drug manufacturers and other manufacturers of medical devices increase the cost of a policy for a family of four at least $ 350 per year.
New West Health Services, the second largest private health insurer, said that pay approximately 1.1 million dollars per year.
"We really have no choice but to pass these additional costs to consumers to purchase insurance, "said Tanya Ask, vice president of external service provider for New West.
Baucus said that the reform efforts, once again safe to start in 2013, will be more competition in the markets for health insurance, making it more difficult to pass these costs on consumers.
Employees with access to health care flexible spending accounts can also see tax increases, when accounts are limited to $ 2,500.
For example, 9400 state workers and university system since
10.5 million U.S. dollars of these accounts this year, except a few million dollars in taxes. State workers could save up to $ 5,000 in the accounts, employees tuition up to $ 6,000.
Impose ceiling, new lower would increase income tax and the estate now exceeds $ 2500.
Proponents argue the application of this threshold is flex benefit some workers, and most do not put more than $ 2,500 in an account. However, change would increase the tax on workers especially the middle class.
Although nobody is excited about higher taxes, two prominent advocates of reform projects of Health – AARP and the Montana Change That Works, an organization funded by labor – say they can live with the tax bill in the Senate.
"AARP believes that some investments are needed to improve our system of care health, "said Stacia Dahl, a spokeswoman for AARP Montana." We believe that shared responsibility – individuals, employers and government – all must contribute to the cost of improving our system of health care.
John Firehammer, spokesman for Montana change that works said that the bill of the combination of tax credits for small businesses, grants for some families and a reduction in "cost shifting" health care costs may reduce the total cost for the majority.
"And the reform will reduce the (federal) deficit, "he added. "Put that together and reform will have a significant effect on the cut, not increase the net tax burden."
About the Author
Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield
Do you believe that requiring health care is bad?
Today I read the news: The bill drafted by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat Montana, cost over 856 billion U.S. dollars from 10 years and mandate insurance coverage for all Americans. Does anyone believe that this is wrong? Government to get a little bigger? Taking away our rights? You may find this complete article on CNN that the proposed mandates care coverage health, public choice drops
The uninsured receive care in emergency rooms because EMTALA costs makes it difficult to keep them away from hospitals billions of dollars a year, which is transmitted to all of us with health insurance or the ability to self-pay. Auto Insurance is mandated by state for decades. Carry health coverage is no different. Premiums allow us to diversify risk in a much larger body of people. I am a law student, married to a doctor. We both support the health reform, including a public choice.
